Emotions always run high when the issue is very young children. People feel protective because they are so small and vulnerable. So evidence which appears to show that the government’s laudable drive to improve the life chances of disadvantaged youngsters is not working has got both critics and advocates in a spin.
A few weeks ago, the success of New Labour’s children’s policies was called into question – not for the first time – by an academic study. Researchers from Durham University studying children’s attainments at age 5 found that between 2002 and 2006 the gap between rich and poor had not got any smaller. This was despite a raft of Government initiatives such as Sure Start (1999), the foundation stage curriculum for 3-5s (2000) and Every Child Matters (2003).
In fact there was little change in children’s progress at all, only a very slight decline in vocabulary – something which will surprise few early years teachers.
Add this to the Birkbeck evaluation of early Sure Start programmes published two years ago – which found that the most disadvantaged families in Sure Start areas fared worse than similar families elsewhere and it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the Government has got it all wrong.
But of course it’s much more complicated, and what is most fascinating are the pointers to what actually makes a difference.
So what works?
The Durham report is unable to tell us how many of the children in the study were actually involved in government programmes – after all, children are not required to attend any type of education or care before they are five.
But we do know a great deal about just what does make for good nursery education. We also know that it gives all types of children an academic and social boost that lasts through primary school.
Evidence from the highly influential EPPE research (Effective Pre-School and Primary Education) shows that the biggest impact comes from having qualified teachers working with young children. Researchers identified seven characteristics of the best settings. Among them are parental involvement and a focus on discipline and behaviour which helps children to discuss and understand their behaviour. Practitioners need a good knowledge of curriculum and pedagogy and should engage children in “sustained shared thinking” (working together to solve a problem).
EPPE has also shown that children of all social classes who attend pre-school are still ahead in literacy and numeracy at ages 7 and 10 in comparison with those who don’t. Youngsters who went to the best pre-schools (which were often integrated centres or state nursery schools) showed less anti-social and worried behaviour, and more independence when they started school.
All in the family
What parents do at home is also enormously important, EPPE shows. If parents involve their toddlers in “learning activities”, such as going to the library or teaching letters and numbers, it makes more of a difference to children’s later academic success than having a university degree.
Meanwhile, school and pre-school can compensate for poor parenting only up to a point. Support for families themselves is what’s increasingly being shown to have life-changing effects on both parents and children. Living in a Sure Start area helped relatively less deprived adults – including fathers - to be better parents. It meant children had fewer behavioural problems and were more socially adept.
But many of those who needed it most, such as teenage mothers, stayed away. “One claim is there wasn’t enough outreach,” says Jay Belsky, one of the directors of the Birkbeck project. “The other possibility was that the outreach might have been perceived as being too strong-armed.”
No-one wants to be a bad parent, but the most vulnerable appear also to be the most wary of those trying to help them.
Bull's eye!
The thing about excellent pre-schools, drop-in centres, or classes for parents is that they won’t help those who don’t use them. We don’t like to target individuals for fear of stigmatising them, but maybe there are times when you need to lead a horse to water, give him a straw and show him how to use it.
That’s what the Nurse/Family Partnership scheme does. This programme, nurtured, developed, tested and evaluated on a relatively small scale in the US over 30 years, is making enormous differences to the lives of teenage mothers and their babies.
The most deprived young women are first visited by nurses as early as possible in their pregnancy and the visits continue until the child is two. The girls don’t have to take part, but actually they are anxious to be good mothers, and are grateful for the no-nonsense, authoritative help of an experienced visiting nurse. The short and long-term effects are impressive (see below), as the nurses develop a caring relationship with the young mother and her family, demonstrating and encouraging good childcare and supporting them in looking after their own lives and futures.
Why not see it as another form of personalised learning?
Nurse/Family Partnerships are now being piloted in 10 local authorities here in the UK. The uptake has been 90%. This kind of intervention is what could make the real difference in lifting more children out of poverty and low ambitions.
What seemed laudable about Sure Start at the beginning has proved to be one of its weaknesses. The idea of local autonomy, of asking parents in the area what they wanted and then providing it, seemed so sensible. What it didn’t give was quality control. “However attractive that ideology sounds, what does it actually reap?” asks Belsky. But he believes the Government deserves credit for taking unfavourable findings on board and acting.
An essential aspect of the Nurse/Family partnership scheme will be unpalatable to many people. It is heavily scripted and standardised. Like McDonalds, you will get the same thing wherever you are. But it’s hard to argue with what works.
